----- Original Message ----- From: "robert burrell donkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gump code and data" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] retire java gump
> On 19 Jun 2004, at 22:49, Sebastian Bazley wrote: [...] > > The -1 was primarily intended to ensure that there would be continuing > > access to redistributable build outputs, which none of the Python Gump > > installations seem to offer at present. I'm not a -1 once that has been > > addressed; I just want to ensure continuity. > > am i right in thinking that by 'redistributable build outputs' you mean > the jar's etc that result from running gump? Yes > IIRC there are some issues about allowing the artifacts created by gump > to be distributed from ASF machines. i think that the board is of the > opinion that only releases approved by a pmc can be distributed. Surely these are not "releases"? Or does it mean that the only software that can be distributed is a release approved by a PMC? > if this is the case, then i'd say that the -1 is probably invalid. if > the output can't be redistribute directly then the presence or absence > of this feature shouldn't be an issue. But the point is that Gump does not only run on ASF machines. > i do agree that it would be good to make available distributions > created by gump but this may need to happen offshore. one approach > would be to ask ibiblio if they were willing to host unofficial daily > builds of ASF products created offshore. we'd then need to find a > volunteer willing to run an unofficial gump on a spare machine and push > the results to ibiblio. only when these measure were in place would the > ability to push the gump results to ibiblio be necessary. I take your point, but until Python Gump supports redistributable jars, hosting Gump offshore cannot happen with Python Gump. Sebastian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
